Monday, August 20, 2007
Libertarianism on the couch
Posted by Harold Henderson on Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 7:38 AM
Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber has a long and high-quality review of arguments about libertarianism. Among other things he quotes Cosma Shalizi:
"On the one hand, the sanctity of private property and private contracts is held to be a matter of inalienable natural right, guaranteed by the fundamental facts of morality, if not a basic part of Objective Reality; capitalism is the Right Thing to Do. On the other hand, much effort is devoted to arguing that unfettered laissez-faire capitalism is also the economic system which will produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number, indeed for all, if only people would just see it."
In fact, of course, this is wishful thinking. Both "free markets" and government action have mixed records. Chicago's Democratic machine has been stifling economic growth and stealing from taxpayers for at least two generations of Daleys, and if anything it is more entrenched now than two generations ago. The makers of lead paint and cigarettes spent decades and killed and disabled many people long after they knew their products were dangerously toxic, and only government action has limited or ended this evil.
One washed-up movie actor to the contrary, government is neither always the solution nor always the problem. Duh.
Shalizi again:
"Now, if the empirical track-record of what are conventionally called free markets is decidedly mixed, there are three courses of action open to the libertarian. (1) Embrace the natural-liberty argument wholeheartedly, and say that we should adopt laissez-faire even when it hurts us, because it’s the right thing to do. Unsurprisingly, moral austerity in defense of liberty finds few takers, though it has some. (2) Argue that the empirical track-record of alternative economic arrangements is actually no better than that of free markets (that, e.g., every instance of market failure is at least matched by an instance of 'government failure'), so that’s a wash, and accordingly we should go with the market solution, since that respects natural liberty. (3) Argue that, appearances to the contrary, free markets really are optimal."
The first two options are intellectually honest; the third is not, but it remains popular, as Shalizi says, in part because "it can be well-paid."
Showing 1-7 of 7
Of course Free Markets are suboptimal, but also self correcting. If my corner store does not carry my favorite candy, maybe they get more business if they decide to carry it. Wouldn't an optimal system have all the candy I need at a one stop shop? There must be some iterative self-correcting approach to providing economic goods that takes advantage of people using common sense to make good decisions without resorting to dogmatic declarations ("There are three courses of action open to the libertarian"). JBP
Of course government is suboptimal, but also self correcting. If my county doesn't offer my favorite service, maybe they get more votes if they decide to provide it. In the real world self-correction takes a long time and is imperfect. How long have GM and Sears and Daley been screwing their customers? As I recall, there's a considerable body of Catholic thought along the lines that the "common sense" of free markets requires a healthy dose of correction in the form of a preferential option for the poor. What I like about the Crooked Timber piece is that they're taking the discussion to a deeper level than we usually do here. RTWT.
H, But the difference is the opt-out feature of private business. If you don't like Sears, you can go to Target. If you don't like your local public school, you still have to pay for it, or you can go to jail. Part of the Catholic Cathecism is that the individual use his own prudential judgment as to how to provide for the poor. Which also strikes me as (un)common sense. JBP
Right. Exit ("love it or leave it") is easier to exercise in private business; voice ("stay and change it") is easier to exercise in public bodies. But that's not a black-and-white distinction. You can buy stock in Sears and try to change it. You can exit from Schaumburg and move to St. Charles. The two kinds of organization have different strengths and weaknesses; it's not good/bad in either direction.
Yes but Sears isn't going to throw you in jail for not shopping there, and in fact, I can start my own store if I really don't like Sears. Try telling either tax district in Schaumburg and St. Charles that you want to send your kids to White Pines Academy, so you don't want to pay property tax. State sponsored monopolies: Education, Healthcare, Liquor Distribution, Highway Construction, Casino Gambling are the ones that will have you jailed for daring to be independent of them. Forcing people to make the wrong choice (or go to jail) is bad, not good. JBP
Forcing people to pay taxes for things that have to be provided collectively is not merely good but essential to civilized life. Are you contending that there are no such things? Also, you standard of "state sponsored monopolites" seems a little broad, i.e. including anything that the state subsidizes or regulates to any extent. If education taxes were tomorrow diverted entirely into individual voucher payments that traveled with the student, who could choose any school or none, would you quit complaining about your education tax? Or still call it a wrongful state-sponsored monopoly?
The trouble with that reasoning is the State does not know where to stop on collectivizing industry (liquor distribution being my current nemesis state monopoly-why does the state mandate this?). I am of the Liberal opinion that the State should mandate forced savings (Social Security, if you will) and K-12 Education. I am also of the Liberal opinion that the individual should be in charge of spending their Savings or Education investment, rather than the State. JBP
Latest in The Blog
-
Too New to Review: Prairie Fire, Leo's Coney Island, the Southern, Revolution Brewing Company, and More
Prairie Fire, Leo's Coney Island of Chicago, the Southern, and other restaurants too new to review.
- Feb 8, 2010
-
Fewer Shoes on the North Side
Times are tough for shoe stores too.
- Feb 8, 2010
-
When Golden Earring Were Good
Wait, Golden Earring was good?
- Feb 8, 2010
- More»
Top Commenters
Comments (7) RSS